You've proven yourself to be worth no significant effort. (is it my fault you lack reading and viewing comprehension skills? If you had them you would understand the system, bro) I reserve serious effort for thoughtful and intelligent adversaries (i.e. erowe). The only reason I bothered with this thread as long as I did is that it shows onlookers the failures and fallacies of statism generally and the Murican statism in particular that you endorse.

It's the wrong question because it has nothing to do with how private courts work. You can have your own agency if you want, but if you and I don't contractually agree to be bound by said agency, your agency has no authority WRT me.

08/03/2005Robert P. MurphyIn a recent article, I discussed the possibility of private, competing security agencies. I took for granted the background rule of law (or lack thereof), and merely made the relative argument that a monopoly institution of violence (i.e. the State) would not aid the achievement of a working consensus on legal norms, and that in fact (as history shows) government-controlled societies are certainly susceptible to civil war. In the present piece, I will elaborate on how law itself could be efficiently and equitably produced in a private setting.
PRIVATE JUDGESWhether society is in anarchy or under the domination of a State apparatus, individuals will always have disputes. Although most arguments are settled between the parties themselves, some disagreements are too serious for such resolution. In such cases, the disputants (in anarchy) can turn to a judge, who is simply a person who agrees to render an opinion on their dispute. Although many anarchist theorists link private judges with enforcement agencies in their expositions, we should keep in mind that the two are conceptually distinct. In its essence, a private judicial ruling is just that—one person’s opinion as to who is right, and what he or she is owed, in a given dispute.
One major difference between private and State judges is that the former only entertain cases when both parties submit to the “jurisdiction” of the judge. (In contrast, one or both parties in a State court case may strongly object to the judge and/or jury who will decide the issue.) Cynics of private law may consider this proposal as ridiculous—the very idea that a rapist or bank robber would agree to plead his case before a third party, ha!
However, this glib dismissal overlooks the fact that most disputes in modern commercial society are not between an “obvious” innocent and an “obvious” malefactor. Rather, it is often the case that both parties to a dispute genuinely believe themselves to be in the right, and would be happy to make their cases in front of a disinterested third party.
Another consideration is that, without the government monopoly and selection of judges based on political pull and demagogic appeal, a crop of professional judges would arise who were, well, quite judicious. (Any unmarried female judges would quite truly be the fairest maidens in the land.) When reading their previous opinions on cases in which they had expertise, people would recognize their excellence, and say, “Wow, that was a great ruling! When I first heard the evidence, I thought the plaintiff was right, but after Judge Barnett explained it with his analogies, the defendant is obviously not guilty.”
In anarchy, people would demand judicial services for all the reasons that people desire law itself: They would want to satisfy their desire for abstract justice, but they would also want to foster predictable business relationships, as well as enjoy a good reputation among their neighbors.
Let’s consider a concrete example. Suppose Mark Johnson owns a store and he breaks the arm of Gary Owens, a customer. Owens proceeds to tell all his friends (and anyone else who will listen) that he was minding his own business when Johnson attacked him. Now in the standard view (and even to some extent that promoted by anarcho-capitalist writers), unless Owens belongs to a protection agency himself, he has no recourse.
But this is simply not true. It is bad for business if Owens runs around telling people he was brutally attacked, and if Johnson does nothing to rebut these charges. If people give any validity to Owens’ story, they will shop elsewhere. Even beyond the pecuniary aspects, if Johnson is at all a normal human being, he will feel uncomfortable at social events if people are whispering about the tale behind his back.
Consequently, Johnson will publicly invite Owens to bring his charges to any reputable judge who ...

We've all (at least I and most other noteworthy anarchists and voluntaryists) not only admitted that long ago, we've expressed great interest in and spilled voluminous ink about means of private security and defense. :) ~hugs~

I reject the constitution, some of the founders, and WRT "the very nature of the founding of our great nation"-depends on how you define that. If you actually read the founders you'd know they all had differing opinions on pretty much everything.

IDK what this gobbeldy-gook even means. "Religious yet worldly". :confused: Withdrawing from the world is not what Christ commands, bro. Creating cliques on the edge of civilization is for sanctimonious Jews and the like. Christ commands us to go out into the world. Paul calls it being the Body Of Christ. I think you forgot to read all the Gospel texts. Unlike you though, I do reject worldly authority and the world's claims on my soul. ;) The State is your God.

Fuck right off with that, asshole. That is a damn lie and you know it. (or perhaps "libertine" is just a "big" word that you just learned and don't fully understand and are trying to look smart with? regardless, you're wrong)

You really can't just "summarize" any theory. (Otherwise it wouldn't be systematic enough to be good theory) That would leave holes in it that beg questions needing more summary. Any summary you could get would leave you with questions requiring you to refer to source material in a bibliography, IMO.

It's a good question and a matter of legal theory. Really beyond the scope of a forum post or 3, IMO. There are lengthy books by scholars about this if you're srsly interested. I'd have to search my records a bit, but I'm sure others here have some titles handy.

I don't think you actually do want a functional debate. If you did you'd know there are at least 4 major "schools" of anarchism. Your whole approach to argumentation against anarchists in this particular thread has been little more than strawmanning. You ought to take time to familiarize yourself with 1) anarchism generally and 2) the sort of anarchism your specific debate opponents are interested in.

"Bone Growth: One of this herbal remedy’s nicknames is “knitbone”, because it can help speed up the healing process for broken bones, as well as other injuries. Comfrey is also rich in calcium, which is a key ingredient in bone growth. The unique combination of organic compounds found in comfrey can stimulate the regrowth of bone minerals, by facilitating more efficient uptake and use of those minerals within the body."https://www.organicfacts.net/health-...s/comfrey.html

What bunklocoempire said above about the Pharisees (and this applies to the Herodians too) being in league with the Roman Empire, and benefitting from its control over Galilee and Judea is absolutely correct. And that is important background to the story.

Let me start by making a couple observations from how the Pharisees and Herodians present their question in v. 14.

When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You

QUOTE=Dianne;5896041]Just wanted the Forums to know that BuddyRey aka Philip Barrett Reynolds left this world today at the age of 31. He introduced me to Ron Paul and this forum in 2007. He passed during surgery for a brain infection. He was a great patriot and a lover of liberty and will surely be missed by all that came to know him. He was the kindest, most gentle, friendly, accepting human being one could ever